Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

An extract from , Climate Change in the Polar Regions, John Turner and Gareth J. Marshall, Cambridge which may be of interest. I've left out the diagrams.

 

The palaeoclimate data suggest that the Arctic warmed from about 1840 to the mid twentieth century, when it reached the highest temperatures in the past four centuries (Overpeck et al 1997). The temperature records fiom stations with long records for December-January and April are shown in Fig. 6.1, along with a map indicating their locations. Data are shown for 59 stations in all with the temperature data being presented eastwards from the Greenwich meridian. Temperatures are available for several islands in the Arctic Ocean, with the remaining stations being located in the northern parts of North America, Scandinavia. Russia and around the coast of Greenland.

 

The overriding impression of Fig. 6.1 is the complexity of temperature changes that take place on a range of timescales. Decades of warmer or colder conditions can be found throughout the records, followed by switches back to more average conditions. The more extreme conditions often occur across a range of longitudes, but are very rarely found all the way around the Arctic. So the trends in temperature depend on the season, region and duration examined. For the central Arctic, the largest temperature trends over 1979-95 were for the spring followed by winter (Fig. 6.2). Trends for summer and winter were much smaller (Serreze eta!., 2000). Analysis of satellite data also shows that the surface temperature trends are greater for inland regions compared with ocean areas (Comiso, 2003).

 

The Arctic-wide temperature changes since 1890 can be appreciated from Fig. 6.1 b. This shows that one of the most pronounced warm periods in the instrumental record occurred over 1930-40. The increase in temperature was seen in the in-situ observational records. by the lack of sea ice around Iceland and via the Greenland ice core boreholes (Dahl-Jensen et al 1998). The 1930s was also the warmest decade of the twentieth century in Iceland (Hanna et al 2004). The warming at this time may well have occurred because of natural climate interdecadal variability since climate models forced by increasing levels of greenhouse gases are not able to reproduce this warm period. After the 1940 warm period, Iceland experienced a cooling until the early 1980s, although the region has experienced an overall warming since the mid 1900s (Hanna et al., 2004).

 

Another pronounced warm period apparent in these figures occurred during April in the 1950s. The higher temperatures were recorded across northern Russia, Alaska and northern Canada, although were less apparent close to the Greenwich Meridian. Overall, Fig. 6.1 c shows generally wanm temperatures in the 1990s, which is consistent with the global trend. whereas over the 1930s to the 1950s there were more regional/temporal episodic warm events.

 

In terms of annual mean surface temperature, north western North America and central Siberia have experienced the greatest temperature rises over the last 50 years, which is of the order of 2-3 oc. The increase in temperature across Alaska and northern Canada is mainly the result of a sudden warming in the mid 1970s. Climatic conditions across Alaska are strongly influenced by the Aleutian Low, which is a climatological atmospheric feature of the North Pacific. A deep Aleutian Low results in predominantly southerly air masses affecting the region and higher temperatures. Cold anomalies across the state are associated with a weak Aleutian Low and more cold, northerly air masses. The depth of the Aleutian Low is strongly influenced by the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which is a major climate cycle of the Pacific region. In the mid 1970s there was a shift in the nature of the PDO, which resulted in a deepening of the Aleutian Low and warmer conditions across Alaska. The higher temperatures in the region have affected many aspects of the environment and resulted in extencive melting of permafrost. I addition there has been the loss of an estimated three million acres of white spruce on the Kenai peninsular by spruce bark beatle as a result of the greater survival rate of the larvae in the warmer conditi ons in the winter.

 

Temperatures have increased markedly across Siberia in recent decades. Observations from 52 stations across the eastern part of the region indicate that the annual mean temperature increased by 0.06-0.59 oc per decade over the period 1956-90, with an average increase of 0.29 °C per decade (Romanovsky et al 2007). The most significant trends were in the southern part of the region between 55 and 65° N. The warming across Siberia seems to be associated with changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)/Arctic Oscillation (AO). Changes in the NAO result in a strengthening or weakening of the westerly winds and the advection of relatively warm air masses into Siberia.From the 1970s until about 2000 the NAO was more in its positive phase (see Section 6.3.2). This has resulted in greater transport of warm Atlantic air across Europe and into central Asia.

 

Conversely, a positive NAO also results in some regional cooling. With a deep Icelandic Low there is strong northerly flow down the Davis Strait, which can result in cooler temperatures in parts of Greenland. Data from eight stations in coastal southern Greenland for 1958-2001 showed a significant cooling of -1.29 oc over the 44-year period (Hanna and Cappel en, 2003 ).

 

Since about 1970 there has been a steady rise in the annual mean surface temperature for the Arctic (see Fig. 6.1 for the time series of Arctic temperatures for December-January and April). In 2006 the mean annual surface temperature for land areas north of 60° N was 1.0 oc above the mean value for the twentieth century (Arguez et al, 2007). By 2008 the Arctic 'scorecard' produced by the US National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration (www. arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/) reported that this year had the fourth warmest annual mean Arctic temperature, which continued the trend of temperature anomalies of more than l °C above the 1961-90 reference point.

 

Models predict that the greatest impact of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations will be felt in the Arctic (Raisanen, 200 l ), and the pattern of recent change agrees with this. However, determining the reasons for the recent temperature rise across the Arctic is not trivial, but studies with climate models and the in-situ observations can provide insight into the possible causes. During the twentieth century there were two anomalously warm periods in the 1930s/ 1940s and starting in the 1990s (Fig. 6.3). Both periods have been linked to sea ice variability (Johannessen et al., 2004), but climate models suggest that the warm period during the 1930s and 1940s was a result of intrinsic variability in high latitude circulation patterns. Conversely,the models reveal that the warming in recent decades is more likely a result of anthropogenic forcing and cannot be explained by natural processes alone. The more recent study of Wang et al. (2007) found a similar result using 63 realisations from 20 coupled climate models from the IPCC fourth assessment. When run through the twentieth century all ensemble members reproduced the warm Arctic anomalies of the last two decades, but only eight models generated warm anomalies of at least two thirds of the observed mid-century warm event, and here the timing was not correct. This is further powerful evidence that the recent warming across the Arctic has a strong anthropogenic component.

 

While there has been a great deal of research into changes in surface temperature across the Arctic there is much less knowledge about how upper air conditions have changed. There are obviously no long time series of radiosonde observations from across the Arctic Ocean, but there are several sites fringing the ocean that have made ascents for several decades and these data have been assimilated into the reanalysis data sets. Graversen et al.(2008) considered the temperature trends at upper levels over the Arctic derived from the reanalysis fields. They found a positive temperature trend which, during the summer half year, they attributed to changes in the atmospheric heat transport. However, it was been pointed out that the quality of the ECMWF reanalysis fields is poorer in high northern latitudes (Thome, 2008), which may cast doubts on the reliability of these results. Grant et al. (2008) examined only the radiosonde data, which revealed that the greatest warming isnear the ground. 

Edited October 22, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it this paper was constructed in the pre-07' period and does not include temp observations from the summer of 07' or beyond? When I look at coastal record temps around the basin they do appear to cluster around the periods where sea ice has retreated from that area?

 

I only mention this as I fear we have 'turned a corner' in the Arctic with both 'average' and warm years showing the potential of driving record ice losses. I feel it overly hopeful for us to expect to have a run of 'cool' summers up there and so end the scale of sea ice decline we have been enduring since the 80's? We are now at the rump end of the remaining ice and so average/warm summers readily expose open ocean and so invite both heating of the ocean itself but also the rapid warming of the land surfaces no longer cooled by the proximity of ice at the coast.

Edited October 22, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Rising Waters: How Fast and How Far Will Sea Levels Rise?

 

Although the latest U.N. climate report significantly increases its projections for sea level rise this century, some scientists warn even those estimates are overly conservative. But one thing is certain: Predicting sea level rise far into the future is a very tricky task.

 

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/rising_waters_how_fast_and_how_far_will_sea_levels_rise/2702/#.UmVakVF5AUo.twitter

Edited October 22, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Comprehensive Study Makes Key Findings of Ocean pH Variations  

 

Some organisms already experiencing ocean acidification levels not predicted to be reached until 2100

 

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/1875

Edited October 22, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Climate change increased the number of deaths

 

[2013-10-21] The increased temperatures caused by ongoing climate change in Stockholm, Sweden between 1980 and 2009 caused 300 more premature deaths than if the temperature increase did not take place. In Sweden as a whole, it would mean about 1,500 more premature deaths, according to a study from researchers at Umeå University published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

 

http://www.medfak.umu.se/english/about-the-faculty/news/newsdetailpage//climate-change-increased-the-number-of-deaths.cid223558

Edited October 22, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

If it was 4-0 half time (substantial sea level rises, ice melt both poles, marked increases in global warming etc) the man made camp would be in a better position to argue were going to win by the end of the game but they cant.

 

Lets see what the next 30 years bring

 

I make it 4-0 coming on 5-0.

 

Sea level is rising, Ice is melting at both poles and Greenalnd, and temps have risen over a long period of time acidification of the oceans, etc.

 

Edited October 23, 2013 by knocker

[Crepuscular Ray]

Glad to see they can roll back the Green Taxes on Gas and Electricity good start. Save the poor punters 2 billon a year.

Relevance to this thread?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Direct response to Dev comment " """"I don't regard money spent to help diversifying our energy supply so we less dependant upon dangerous regimes as a waste. etc etc etc"""""

 

A lot of people do.

 

Very relevant as there is a big 'cost' going down its all 'man made' but the post was taken off so your safe you can ignore the cost. 

 

How about the trillions in health costs associated with burning fossil fuels and the cost from environmental damage and cleanups, are we ignoring that too? Or how about the billions in government subsidies for the oil industry?

[Methuselah]

Have unhidden it now you've 'sort of' demonstrated its relevance, Stew. But the subject might be better-placed in the energy price-rises thread? 

[Methuselah]

Direct response to Dev comment " """"I don't regard money spent to help diversifying our energy supply so we less dependant upon dangerous regimes as a waste. etc etc etc"""""

 

A lot of people do.

 

Very relevant as there is a big 'cost' going down its all 'man made' but the post was taken off so your safe you can ignore the cost. 

And 5% of every bill is down to the Tories' making domestic fuel liable to VAT...

 

I'd rather pay green taxation, leading to cleaner  and better ways of burning fuel, than simply pay the energy corporations' year-on-year-on-year-on-year...10% price-hikes...None of which has the minutest of connections to taxation.

[Devonian]

Direct response to Dev comment " """"I don't regard money spent to help diversifying our energy supply so we less dependant upon dangerous regimes as a waste. etc etc etc"""""

 

A lot of people do.

 

Very relevant as there is a big 'cost' going down its all 'man made' but the post was taken off so your safe you can ignore the cost. 

 

1, energy taxes are money that still get spent in the economy. But, spent in other, to my mind sensible, ways (on insulating houses, on diversifying our energy supply etc etc)

 

2, you regard spending money to get a diverse energy supply as a waste? I'm sorry but I simply can't understand the view that putting our energy security deeper into the hands of the mad men in the middle east or Mr Putin is a good idea.

 

3, (a general comment) we see the problem when this thread (and the others two for that matter) are 'invaded' by other views. I'm not in this thread to defend man made warming and it's consequences but to "keep to the thread (or threads) which best suit your views. This should allow for a more reasonable debate for all sides without the need for anyone to be defending their view, or attacking other views."

[knocker]

A quote from the link.

 

A paper they cite by Pat Michaels and Chipp Knappenberger found only one US city that had any mortality increase due to heat, and that was Seattle. Michaels opines that this was likely due to the city being such a cool climate that very little cooling infrastructure was in place in the city. This might also be true of the high latitude city of Stockholm.

 

 

I can tell you another one from my own reading. The Chicago heat wave of July 1995 killed 700 people.

 

Source: Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago, Eric Klienenberg, University of Chicago Press.

 

P.S. Merely going through the motions but should the previous post be in this thread?

Edited October 24, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

There are a number of problems with this study - outlined here.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-climate-change-caused-more-deaths-in-stockholm/

Fine, entitled to your opinion and all that. But, a site, and a view, sceptical of manmade climate change so it really belongs in the other thread. Edited October 24, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

I didn't know where to put this, if anywhere, but's it's quite an interesting read.

 

Krugman reviews Nordhaus' new book The Climate Casino, which concludes we need to price carbon

 

Gambling with Civilization

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/climate-change-gambling-civilization/?pagination=false

Edited October 25, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

Stewfox wrote: "Of course you can only have strong 'natural variability' in the Southern Hemisphere not in the Northern Hemisphere, go figure. 

 

Mention 'natural variability' for the Artic and your shouted down. "

 

 

Edit: and SI:

 

 

"Natural variability only counts when it suites Stew, the goalposts have been moved that many times that I'm not even sure we are even playing the same game now"

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the contrary only with NV could there be two Arctic sea ice years like this one and 2012.

Edited October 25, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

Natural variability only counts when it suites Stew, the goalposts have been moved that many times that I'm not even sure we are even playing the same game now

 

Of course the goal posts have moved and it's towards the sea as they are embedded in the ice sheet.

 

International study provides more solid measure of shrinking in polar ice sheets

The planet’s two largest ice sheets have been losing ice faster during the past decade, causing widespread confusion and concern. A new international study provides a firmer read on the state of continental ice sheets and how much they are contributing to sea-level rise.

 

 

http://depts.washington.edu/coenv/freshwater/2012/11/international-study-provides-more-solid-measure-of-shrinking-in-polar-ice-sheets/

Edited October 25, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

A week is a long time in Australian climate change politics

 

Two people died, flora and fauna were decimated and hundreds of homes lost in NSW, but the firestorm didn’t end there

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/25/a-week-is-a-long-time-in-australian-climate-change-politics?CMP=twt_gu

Edited October 25, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Ozone Hole Could Be on the Mend

 

Every spring in Antarctica brings conditions that favor the creation of the ozone hole. Scientists recently reported that this year’s hole maxed out in September, and while it’s smaller than in recent years, it’s too early to call it a recovery.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ozone-hole-could-be-on-the-mend-16657

Edited October 25, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

 

 

Of course you can only have strong 'natural variability' in the Southern Hemisphere not in the Northern Hemisphere, go figure. 

 

Mention 'natural variability' for the Artic and your shouted down.

 

So 07' wasn't down to the 'winds' and export then? The Arctic fell to it's record low by melt alone?Natural variability seemed to suit until 2012 showed you that a knackered Arctic could do it all without 'perfect' conditions due to 'natural variability'.....just an 'average year in fact. Ask 4! he's big on what drove 07's low.....just check the posts from around then....

[knocker]

Funny that GW alarmist cannot stay out of this thread, the reason is they are losing the argument because nature does what it wants to do ,nothing what we do can effect natural global oscillation.

 

This continuous GW bashing and using ridiculous words such as alarmist when all he is doing is giving an opinion, usually supported by cogent argument, is getting very boring. Especially coming from people who appear to be barren in the latter as is apparent by, "they are losing the argument".

[knocker]

keithlucky, on 26 Oct 2013 - 00:28, said:

 

Yes GW alarmist are losing the argument were is there extreme weather they keep on about there super hurricanes? Only 1 category 1 hurricane recorded this year,the least ammount for 45 year,The year1851 was recorded as one of the coldest years ever recorded in Australia yet more Australia bush fires ever recorded occurred in that year. and finally since David Viner a leading GW warmist declared the end of snow in the northern hemisphere 6 of the snowiest winters have occurred since that statem

 

-   =====================================

 

The Black Thursday bushfires were a devastating series of fires that swept the state of Victoria, Australia on 6 February 1851. They are considered the largest Australian bushfires in a populous region in recorded history, with approximately 5 million hectares, or a quarter of Victoria, being burnt. 12 lives were lost, along with one million sheep and thousands of cattle.

 

The year preceding the fires was exceptionally hot and dry and this trend continued into the summer of 1851. On Black Thursday, a northerly wind set in early and the temperature in Melbourne was reported to have peaked at 47.2 degrees C (117 degrees F) at 11:00am. This would have been the hottest temperature ever recorded in the city—although it has never been an official record, as there is no evidence the temperature was actually measured in full shade and the Stevenson screen had not yet been used in Australia so it was a non standard measurement. Further to that the measurement is based on anecdotal evidence and therefore may never have been measured at all, i.e. could have been an exaggeration or made up completely. The north wind was so strong that thick black smoke reached northern Tasmania, creating a murky mist, resembling a combination of smoke and fog. A ship 20 miles (32 km) out to sea came under burning ember attack and was covered in cinders and dust.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Thursday_%281851%29

 

  ++++++++++++++++++

 

Australia’s warmest 12-month period on record, again Australia’s warmest September on record

Australia’s record for warmest 12-month period has been broken for a second consecutive month. This continues a remarkable sequence of warmer-than-average months for Australia since August 2012.

 

September 2013 was easily Australia’s warmest September on record. The national average temperature for September was +2.75 Â°C above the long-term (1961–1990) average, which also sets a record for Australia’s largest positive anomaly for any monthly mean temperature. The previous record of +2.66 Â°C was set in April 2005.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/

 

What is causing the warming?

 

Over the last 100 years, global mean temperature has increased by around 0.74 °C. This rapid rate of warming is very unusual in the context of natural climate variability.

 

In the first half of the 20^th century, increasing greenhouse gases, increasing solar radiation and a relative lack of volcanic activity all contributed to a rise in globally averaged temperature. During the 1950s and 1960s, global temperatures levelled off. This is most likely due to an increase in reflective particles in the atmosphere, known as aerosols, from increased industrialisation and the volcanic eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963. Since the 1970s, increases in greenhouse gases have dominated over all other factors, and there has been a period of sustained warming. It is very unlikely that 20^th century warming can be explained by natural causes alone.

 

Importantly, almost all of the climate indicators show that climate change during the late 20^th century is consistent with greenhouse gas increases. For instance, increases in solar radiation would cause warming in the troposphere and stratosphere. However, cooling in the stratosphere is what is actually observed, which is consistent with greenhouse gas increases.

 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/#tabs=About-climate-change

 

Actually what Viner said:

 

"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

 

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past was the spin the Independent put on it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

Edited October 26, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

And

 

Comment: Climate change may cause greater bush fire risk in Australia

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR541842.aspx

[Devonian]

Wrt Keith and four in the other thread.

 

Keith, how many times do we have to ask you to supply links to your posts   . It's a pretty basic politeness to do so do really

 

Four, your laugh comes across as an inability to offer any better response. The quote happens to be correct.

[Devonian]

This continuous GW bashing and using ridiculous words such as alarmist when all he is doing is giving an opinion, usually supported by cogent argument, is getting very boring. Especially coming from people who appear to be barren in the latter as is apparent by, "they are losing the argument".

 

I absolutely agree but it would carry more weight if we could keep to 'our own' threads (if that be the way of this place). That GW doesn't keep to this thread gives his attackers, his personal and offensive attackers, an excuse.

[Devonian]

But it's fine to label sceptics misleaders, talk about double standards!

Arrghh, I just ask someone, from my 'side' if you like, to keep to their own, 'our',  thread and you pop up here    

Edited October 26, 2013 by Devonian